Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RicardoRon21 (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 26 October 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


October 19

04:53:38, 19 October 2021 review of draft by Tylermelnyk


Jyoti Gondek was just elected Mayor of Calgary. Why am I being restricted from editing her page? This woman requires extensive editing to her wiki now that she is mayor elect. I was hoping to do that work but its being denied. What? Why? Tylermelnyk (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tylermelnyk The draft has been accepted. I do not understand why you state that you are being restricted from editing the page. As far as I can see you have all the rights to edit one would expect for an editor in good standing FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:18:48, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Scootbilly

Requesting re-review. {{paid}} Scootbilly (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scootbilly I have done this, and left a comment on the draft. As a paid editor you are held to a substantial standard and are expected to understand our policies precisely because you are paid. Please learn them and then yiou are welcome to write a brand new draft which complies. I see no reason to overturn the rejection of this draft. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:22:58, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Yogendra singh Samar


Yogendra singh Samar (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:33:08, 19 October 2021 review of submission by LeoRathu


LeoRathu (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LeoRathu Your draft has been rejected. Wikipedia is not here for you to promote yourself. Please use social media instead FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:58:35, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Yogendra singh Samar


Yogendra singh Samar (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogendra singh Samar Your draft has been rejected. Wikipedia is not here for you to promote yourself. Please use social media instead FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:23:52, 19 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Bennair


Thank you for the opportunity. I am new to this platform and the style of writing. I tried submitting a company page with language as neutral as possible but it still got rejected. I even used external media links but to no help. Will appreciate the assistance.


Bennair (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:54:57, 19 October 2021 review of draft by Riteshkumarbhanu


Riteshkumarbhanu (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riteshkumarbhanu You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the opportunity. I am new to this platform and the style of writing this please help us to publish this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riteshkumarbhanu (talk • contribs) 10:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riteshkumarbhanu Who is "us"? There should only be one person operating your account. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a person and their accomplishments. An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Writing a new article is the most challenging task to undertake on Wikipedia, and it's good to first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial and reading Your First Article helps as well.
If you have an association with this person, please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:25:38, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Neelmohapatra


Neelmohapatra (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi, This is an old university and its founder is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. also We tried to post complete correct information which is independent. Then why this article has got this content disproved.

Neelmohapatra Please see your user talk page for important information. I would refer you to my comments on the draft, as well as those in the messages declining it. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something or its offerings, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it. The sources offered do not seem to be independent. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the user page. When will this article be approved now? Neelmohapatra (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neelmohapatra For further comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. The draft will not be accepted until it does as I have mentioned previously, here and on the draft itself. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cant understand what are you saying? Neelmohapatra (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neelmohapatra You are creating a new section of this page with every edit you make; this is unnecessary. Please edit this existing section. If you are using the mobile version of Wikipedia or the app, these do not have full functionality and make it harder to do that- please use the full desktop version in a browser, even if on a phone or tablet. This will allow you to see the "edit" in the section header of this section or at the top of this page, so you can avoid creating additional sections.
Regarding the draft, please review the comments by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:53, 19 October 2021 review of submission by 2405:204:1290:84F0:0:0:D2:18A0


2405:204:1290:84F0:0:0:D2:18A0 (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:37:35, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Robayet7


Robayet7 (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robayet7 You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. You cannot resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:51:27, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Abm1994

I have two references for Prashna page . Can you add and do something with the page https://www.mymovies.it/ondemand/uiff/movie/9721-prashna/ https://www.unicef.it/media/unicef-innocenti-film-festival-a-firenze-la-seconda-edizione-della-rassegna-di-ci/

Abm1994 (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:55:44, 19 October 2021 review of submission by ZX2006XZ

The trailer for the new Diary of a Wimpy Kid movie just dropped today. Here's the link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKhCPUa-glo

ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That the trailer was released changes nothing- once the film is released, it will be notable. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:19:45, 19 October 2021 review of draft by 00sClassicGamerFan


My submission got rejected even though I have a source to back it up. Where can I write about it?

My submission got rejected even though there’s a reliable source to back it up. Is a book not a reliable source?

00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 00sClassicGamerFan. In Articles for creation parlance, the draft was declined, which allows improvement and re-submission, not rejected, which is final.
  • The topic requires multiple sources to demonstrate notability (suitability for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a stand alone article).
  • Whether a book is a reliable source depends on more than the fact that it's a book. Non-fiction books written by scholars and published by academic presses or major mainstream publishers are preferred. The authors of Top Gear Christmas are a film writer, novelist, and television producer known for their comedy work. The publisher, BBC Books, is a sister concern to the company that produced the television programme which is the main topic of the book, Top Gear. The purpose of the book is to promote the series, so it is not independent of it. Whether it would be a reliable source about Donko would depend on what it actually says about it and in what context, but it seems unlikely to be reliable.
  • Even if it is reliable, it may not contain significant enough coverage of Donko to count as a source that supports notability. It doesn't help if the game is mentioned in a single sentence or paragraph, but might be considered significant if there are several paragraphs or a whole page about the game.
--Worldbruce (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

02:51:11, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Dottee

I'd love to know if articles can be published without several independent sources. The article I wish to write does not have many outside sources to reference for information, only the substantial amount in the two available. Dottee (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Dottee (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dottee. No, they can't. What an organization has to say about itself belongs on that organization's webpage, not in Wikipedia. We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. Multiple sources are generally expected, to show sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and to ensure we aren't parroting a single point of view on the topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:13:16, 20 October 2021 review of draft by Xland44


Hi, when editing Draft:Jim Swan, I accidentally included multiple citations to the same site. Is there some way to merge citations? Xland44 (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xland44: Yes, by using named references you can cite the same source in several places in the article without having it repeated in the list of references. Here is how to do it. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:27:05, 20 October 2021 review of draft by Xiaofeng93


I have made proper changes based on feedback from the editor, but still not sure if meets the full requirment.

Can I seek help to have a pre-review before re-submit?

Xiaofeng93 (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xiaofeng93: Sure. Glancing over it, not a single reliable source jumps out, and I see a lot of really terrible ones: wikitia, Crunchbase, prnewswire, and coindesk, for example. Considering this and Wikipedia's general sanctions on blockchain and cryptocurrency-related articles, I think it's safe to say Wikipedia will never publish an article on this subject. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:48:17, 20 October 2021 review of draft by ResetK


To whom it may concern,

I have created the article on PROJECT MOD, which is under development by NEXON KOREA. The article has been rejected three times for the reason the article does not cover significant, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Since the platform is in its early stage, I took a look at the Project TL article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_TL - as a reference. Should I add more lines to the article? Or do I ask to put more references? Do please kindly revise how can I develop the article to publish it.

Best, ResetK

ResetK (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ResetK. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and low quality ones. If you want to learn from examples, be sure to use Wikipedia's best, not Project TL.
Businesswire is a press release, so not independent. MMOs.com's three sentences do not constitute significant coverage. Techbeezer.com is incoherent. It reads like a bad machine translation of a press release. YouTube is a generally unreliable source, and material published there by Project MOD is not independent. The Nexon website is not independent. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft referemces zero sources like that. If there are no such sources because the platform is in its early stage, then wait a few years until the platform is more mature. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:29:59, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Sucker for All

Am confused by a purported lack of "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". It certainly is just not a passing mention in any of the 6 sources (more similar sources are readily available), and she's, in truth, viewed by millions of people for at least an hour a week on the biggest news station in the world. Do we have specific precedents for the viability of the various sources in question? Fox News is considered viable per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources (she was previously with ABC), whereas the others include 1. allstarbio 2. thewhoisbio 3. thefamousinfo 4. profilespedia 5. factsbuddy . A comment on each sources purported lack of reliability would be in order. others that *could* be used include a. goldencelebrities b. fact-pedia c. marriedceleb d. wikiage e. glamourpath f. starsgab g. factsbio h. bio-peida i. wealthyspy j. chandigarhfirst k. xycinews l. biographyhoses m. arealnews n. informationflare o. celebpie p. marriedwiki q. theparadise r. factualhub s. yankeetv t. b.wikiage u. popcreep v. thecelebinfo w. nypost (in passing @ https://nypost.com/2010/05/10/miss-usa-contestants-in-their-undies/ in 2010) x. thewhoisbio y. muzu.tv z. expioreceleb, in addition to many many other articles. All are independent of the subject matter and, other than the nypost, not one is just a mention in passing. How do we get this published? Which of the above sources is considered more and less reliable than others? All sources here seem to flow similarly to snopes.. Sucker for All (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Sucker for All (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sucker for All You appear to have a misunderstanding of the term Reliable Sources. The references you have chosen are not considered reliable secondary sources. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both nypost and Fox News are considered reliable. And she's literally On Fox News at least 1 hour per day delivering live news. All 31 sources listed are considered unreliable? More are easily visible in a Google search of her name.. Sucker for All (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sucker for All A Fox News bio of one of their team is a Primary Source. The other references you have used are not of any use at all since they are not reliable. Your do not seem to have used nypost as a reference. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sucker for All: According to WP:RS/PS, nypost is a generally unreliable source. Fox News is sometimes reliable, sometimes unreliable, depending on context. Fox News is her employer, however, so it is not an independent source about her. They have an incentive to promote her. Your list of 31 sources is about as trashy a set of sources as it's possible to name. They're so bad that it's hard to believe you're serious in suggesting them. Being a news anchor, regardless of time on air or channel, does not make a person notable. Being written about in independent reliable sources is what makes one notable. See Peter Jennings or Marjory Stoneman Douglas for examples of reliable sources for information about news anchors and journalists. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce:, did you read the article? I don't actually use the nypost link. I use 8 of the 31 mentioned links, none of which are considered unreliable according to official wiki guidelines.. Sucker for All (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She's literally hosting Fox News' Fox & Friends First right now.. It *might* be a question of me not demonstrating notability, but she's clearly notable Sucker for All (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sucker for All: It is a question of not demonstrating notability, since there is nothing in the draft to show why she would be considered notable. There are six references in the draft. One is the primary source from Fox News, the other five are nowhere near reliable. A good rule of thumb is that any website where a biographical article has a title approximating "Height, weight, age, relationships, wealth" is not going to be a reliable source. In theory, there might be exceptions to that, but these five are in fact useless. You only need to take a very quick look at them to determine that, and if you read the sources more closely you will notice that they even re-use the same phrasing. No idea who churns out these worthless "bio" sites (and that is another reason we can't use them), but I'm guessing it is a lucrative business. --bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, she's Definitely notable. 5 other sources, in addition to an official bio by FNC, none of which are really very different than, say, Snopes were proposed. I understand that the list of proposed sources was extensive and not explicity mentioned for notability here; however, glamourpath, starsgab, factsbio, bio-peida, wealthyspy, chandigarhfirst, xycinews, arealnews, informationflare, factualhub and yankeestv are just Among the sources that discuss her and her career . The problem I have with characterization of her lack of notability is that people aren't writing about her. All of the people mentioned above are though. "A good rule of thumb is that any website where a biographical article has a title approximating 'Height, weight, age, relationships, wealth' is not going to be a reliable source" does not appear at WP:BIO nor at WP:RS/PS nor at WP:Reliable Sources. Still others include newson, nexttv or either this https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/local/kmiz-reporter-and-anchor-to-join-fox-news/article_2359c174-5273-11ea-9a22-93909c8ccd25.html or https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/kmiz-tv-anchor-ashley-strohmier-will-join-fox-news-as-overnight-anchor-and-news-correspondent/430603/ . I could ask in more detail at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if that would be productive? Sucker for All (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:40:56, 20 October 2021 review of draft by Ethixgrrl


Following comment by Wingwatchers have updated the article, but would appreciate guidance as to where the peacock terms are and to improve tone so it meets requirements? Previous comments had not mentioned inappropriate tone so would be grateful for assistance. In response to a previous comment, more references have been included from independent and reliable sources including national media and the UK government website. Many thanks in advance for your help!

Ethixgrrl (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:06, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Will Morland


Will Morland (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will Morland You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:52:54, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Kulasperes


Kulasperes (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kulasperes The button. says "Ask for Advice". Our telepathy interface is currently down for maintenance, but will be back online in 2097. Rather than waiting until then please ask your question FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kulasperes: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Watch this space. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kulasperes: Please refer to the top table here and get some coffee. This will take some time.
The bulk of your sources are to her appearances on Tawag ng Tanghalan/It's Showtime and disrespectfully perfunctory summaries of same. This in and of itself tends to be an argument against notability, on the grounds that a person who is only really notable for appearing on a reality show or talent competition is little different from a person whose only claim to fame is they videotaped a Black man being beaten by police, and thus the article on the person should redirect to the article on the season they appeared in or (if that doesn't exist) to the article on the show proper. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:33, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Syafikrie


Syafikrie (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Syafikrie The button. says "Ask for Advice". Our telepathy interface is currently down for maintenance, but will be back online in 2097. Rather than waiting until then please ask your question FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:45:22, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Djscamper


Hi, I just change the wording on the page to help avoid any copyright issues.

I also linked in articles about Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation.

Djscamper (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djscamper (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:12:27, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Syedanustanweer


Syedanustanweer (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syedanustanweer You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Please use social media to tell the world about yourself. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

04:07:00, 21 October 2021 review of submission by Jacktenaya


Hello! I tried submitting an article to a local historical business in my city. Why was it declined?

Jacktenaya (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Morrison's Jewelers
@Jacktenaya: One source that hardly talks about the business is not going to be enough to justify an article. Note that we do accept offline sources, if properly cited. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:30:51, 21 October 2021 review of draft by 2A01:E35:39FE:EA00:C873:33C:1F63:7E66


My submission was declined, on the grounds of "reading like an advertisement." I am unsure which portion of the draft this refers to and have tried to add external links to reference all information, so I am requesting to know what changes, deletions, or improvements can I make to the draft in order for the submission to be approved ? 2A01:E35:39FE:EA00:C873:33C:1F63:7E66 (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an advertisement because it just tells about TheFork and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you offer simply report the routine business activities of the company, this does not establish notability.
If you are associated with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:22:30, 21 October 2021 review of submission by Jomafa


I have made some corrections, and edited some words, I believe my page is qualified and would be glad if given a page on Wikipedia. Jomafa (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:27:34, 21 October 2021 review of draft by HorribleHistories1992


Need help making this article, found a credible British activist who does not appear on Wikipedia. Draft:Nigel Bromage


HorribleHistories1992 (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HorribleHistories1992 I've reviewed your draft and left some advice there. I've fixed your link above, the whole URL is not necessary. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:57:25, 21 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by HorribleHistories1992

Article Creation
I would like help to create and finish this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nigel_Bromage so that it can be approved. I have no experience with article creation and the sources are there, but format is wrong. Any help here in creating this article is appreciated.


HorribleHistories1992 (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be much easier to do if you switched to WP:VE. In the editor, there's a pencil icon at the top right and you can switch there to Visual Editor. Place the cursor where you want the ref, then click cite. The references will be automatically completed after you paste the URL in the box. Gorden 2211 (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't use the Daily Mail, see WP:DAILYMAIL and don't create a new section for every reply. Gorden 2211 (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:05:28, 21 October 2021 review of submission by Jomafa

I have made corrections, please what could be the challenge? Jomafa (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jomafa The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:38:24, 21 October 2021 review of submission by Marveldccomicsfan

hi, what can i do to make my article request accepted as it has been declined a few times. is there something wrong with it or? Marveldccomicsfan (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marveldccomicsfan There is nothing you can do- the draft was rejected. No amount of editing can confer notability. The vast majority of fictional characters do not merit articles. Only characters that receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources merit articles. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:50:00, 21 October 2021 review of draft by Tabatha Adchoir

Hi, I'm trying to figure out what qualifies as reliable Source for my Artist References. For example, the first Article referenced, by Ricardito for SoulTracks Magazine, which has a Wikipedia Entry itself seems reliable to me as it is an unbiased and non-promotional review by a well known genre defined Magazine. The Article by Mentalunrest.com named Aural Dive is another umbiased review, but reliable I'm the sense that Mentalunrest is a well known and visited Arts-Review Website. I guess trying to figure out which References I should keep and which to delete, as maybe some lesser known websites don't qualify. Thank you for your help.

Tabatha Adchoir (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabatha Adchoir: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a in-depth third-party source that corroborates it or (if no source can be found for that claim) removed. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT negotiable. Your issue isn't the quality of sources - it's that you have far too few. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jēskē, Thanks for your response, I think I'm slowly getting the picture. I guess my real question is how does an independent Artist get to have an Article if he doesn't have Prime Coverage? If a respected Site like SoulTracks, which has a Wiki Entry and a worldwide Audience of about 250k monthly doesn't qualify as a reliable source then the chances become slim. If unbiased Album Reviews by well known Music Blogs don't count, though the Independent Music Industry relies on them, even slimmer. So how does one let the world know of the existence of this Artist, thats clearly been consistently putting out Material for over 10 years now? Should he be advised to sign a Label Deal and get a Billboard Magazine Article first? Thanks for your Help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabatha Adchoir (talk • contribs) 06:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabatha Adchoir Wikipedia has no interest in helping or harming anyione's career. Advice is not given on ways of promoting one's self to be able, at some future time, to meet our notability criteria. A subject is either notable in a wikipedia sense or it is not FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Tabatha Adchoir. "Let the world know of the existence of this Artist" is a goal that is antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia, which may not be used for any type of publicity, promotion, or public relations. If getting the word out about him is your objective, you may wish to explore alternative outlets for your writing. Encyclopedias, being tertiary sources, don't contain biographies of people the world at large hasn't already taken significant notice of.
Wikipedia gauges this attention not by how long a person has worked or how prolific they've been, but by how much has been written about them in independent, reliable, secondary sources. SoulTracks writes as much about an artist as they're willing to pay for; they are neither independent nor reliable. Self-published blogs are reliable only for the opinion of the author. They don't help demonstrate notability except in the rare case of professional music critics who have previously been published in reliable sources. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources contains a list of sources Wikipedians have found useful when writing about music. Billboard is on that list, but so are many others. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


October 22

10:24:54, 22 October 2021 review of draft by 213.247.64.246


I need information about the Orthodox filakto, and Wikipedia doesn't (seem to) have any. So I made a page - a stub - in the hope that anyone will fill it in. It is a draft, named Filakto (Orthodox). The filakto is very common, so I am sure lots of people will have information on it. Can I publish my stub in the hope to attract authors? I was looking for information, and then got the option to request page creation - that already means that I am not the proper person to provide that information..

213.247.64.246 (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to submit your draft for review in order for it to be considered. IP users(and new accounts) cannot directly create articles. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:40, 22 October 2021 review of submission by Kacperbeski


Hello,

Thank you for your review. Since the article has been declined , I would really appreciate it if you could tell me a little bit more in terms of ways to improve it. I have only received vague comment saying that the article reads more as an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. I have been researching this person through internet and common friends and would appreciate you pointing out which parts should be changed.

Thank you and all the best,

Kacper

Kacperbeski (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:47:18, 22 October 2021 review of submission by 204.18.51.131


204.18.51.131 (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Really I do not know how to edit my article to be accepted by Wikipedia! Is there anybody to edit this article?

Best regards, Kiumars Zamani

Hello Kiumars Zamani, this is your first edit under this IP. If you use an account to edit, please remember to login before posting. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:26, 22 October 2021 review of submission by Kozdra108


Kozdra108 (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kozdra108 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:25, 22 October 2021 review of submission by JulieFr

To create a page about the French mathematician Maurice Marcel Clerc, my model was the one about his colleague and friend James Kennedy. They worked together for many years on Particle Swarm Optimization, and wrote together an IEEE awarded paper. Actually J. Kennedy said once that the contribution of M. Clerc to this topic was more important than his own. So I do not really understand why my submission has been rejected. Please tell me how I can improve it.JulieFr (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC) JulieFr (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JulieFr: I assume this refers to User:JulieFr/sandbox - if so, you accidentially had overwritten the draft with an (almost) blank page), causing Theroadislong to decline it as a test. I have recovered the previous draft contents from the page history. However, before you attempt to resubmit this for review, you should add a your sources, in the form of inline citations (click this link to find out what this is and how its done), which is mandatory when writing about living people. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:46:49, 22 October 2021 review of submission by Adityasharma131313

I am aditya raj sharma also known as aditya raj vashishth . I am an author of book imposior. Adityasharma131313 (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. Please note that writing about yourself is strongely discouraged, as people naturally write more favourable about themselves. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:21:33, 22 October 2021 review of submission by Prathamesh Tiparkar


Prathamesh Tiparkar (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prathamesh Tiparkar You don't ask a question, but you submitted your user page as an article. Your user page is a place to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor only. It is not a social media style page. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. As such, the vast majority of people do not merit articles. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:49, 22 October 2021 review of draft by Forich


I created the draft for Karoll Marquez a few weeks ago and submitted it for review.

One reviewer responded that:

Nothing shows notability here, there appears to be no coverage on the athlete in reliable, secondary sources (YouTube cannot be cited). The television he is "known for" doesn't appear to be notable either, as the shows themselves don't yet have an article.

.

I have read the review, and improved the draft in the following ways:

  1. The article is not about an athlete, as the reviewer interpreted, Marquez is an actor and singer
  2. There are now two reliable secondary sources on the draft: Revista Semana and El Tiempo, both very reputable news sources in Colombia
  3. Many of the television shows he has acted in now have wiki links to their pages. Oye Bonita links to english wikipedia, the others link to spanish wikipedia
  4. The song Mentira links to an english wikipedia entry
  5. At least two works of Marquez then have their own entry in English wikipedia, with many more having an alone entry in the spanish project

Please comment on whether this changes have improved the draft Pinging @Clearfrienda: as well.

Forich (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Forich: Refer to the top table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
I am uncomfortable saying whether or not the sources work for notability given the two sources I cannot assess. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time reading the draft. I carefully read the observations made above. These are my improvements made since then:
  1. I eliminated some of the problematic sources (i.e. the one from "las 2 orillas" and the youtube interview).
  2. I now establish notability directly with a quote from a 2014 piece from "El Tiempo" saying that Márquez is a "reconocido actor y cantante".
  3. I kept the piece from Semana that talks about his sexual orientation, but to tangentially serve as the source of the date of his first music album. All controversial mentions of sexuality were purged from the article
  4. I also added many new facts about Márquez based on reputable sources (i.e. El Tiempo, El Espectador, El Heraldo), including two or three facts relevant to his notability
  5. I fixed some minor issues with other sources, which can be seen in the history of the draft
Please review the current version of the article and run a thorough review of it. Pinging @Jéské Couriano: Forich (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:53:28, 22 October 2021 review of submission by Navnine9


Navnine9 (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Mansi Choksi

Hi everyone,

I wrote a draftthat was declined because of the question of notability in independent sources. I've added new links to show that Choksi was named a global influencer by the UN Foundation, profiled for her work in an independent Indian magazine, named a star contributor for VICE magazine and received several awards for her work from New York University, Fulbright Program, Wallace House and International Women's Media Foundation.

Does this sound like it addresses the problem?

Thanks so much for your time.

--Navnine9 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Get some coffee, refer to the top table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode, and watch this space; this is going to be a minute. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Navnine9: Here is my source assessment.
Even if the awards do help for notability, the problem is that with an article like this you are beholden to two policies for an article: Notability and WP:Biographies of living persons. It is both possible and very probable, especially in this instance, that you can meet one but fail the other. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mansi Choksi

Hi there,

Thanks so much for spending the time and energy to walk me through this. I think I understand the distinction now and went ahead and added appropriate links that I believe better establish Choksi's notability.

I'll sum it up here:

1. https://opcofamerica.org/Awardarchive/the-madeline-dane-ross-award-2018/ An award that describes her work and that was presented at an award ceremony hosted by a CBS anchor and uploaded to the official OPC site.

2. https://medium.com/the-coalition-for-women-in-journalism/mansi-choksi-represents-cfwij-at-article-19-mexico-ad54f5d895a This article sums up a speech she gave at an Article 19 conference in Mexico about her work in journalism. Article 19's official channel. Article 19 is a human rights organization that is linked to a Wiki page above. I have also linked to a Youtube video aired on an Spanish news TV. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIDlYSZnUl4

4. https://www.iwmf.org/reporting/a-chance-to-rewrite-history-the-women-fighters-of-the-tamil-tigers/ This piece, although written by her, includes an intro by the editor since it was the last piece written by the murdered Swedish journalist Kim Wall. It also won a nomination for the Livingston Award, which is the most prestigious award for journalists under 35, they are referred to as the Pulitzer of the Young, as seen in its Wiki page.

5. https://longreads.com/2017/12/22/the-top-5-longreads-of-the-week-201/ Her story has been picked as the top 5 long reads.

6. https://wallacehouse.umich.edu/2018-livingston-award-finalists-announced/ I changed the link to Wallace House to show that she was a finalist for the most prestigious award for journalists under 35.

I'll look forward to your thoughts.

Thanks once again!!!

--Navnine9 (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navnine9 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to this query on my talkpage. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

02:37:58, 23 October 2021 review of draft by 93.183.169.165


93.183.169.165 (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't asked a question, but does it involve adding project tags? 331dot (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections and updates

09:08:17, 23 October 2021 review of draft by Fjoan


Hello. I request help on this article, because I'm struggling with the "cite your sources using footnotes", to meet the minimum standard for the inline citations. I also add some few more references because those were the reasons why the article was declined for the moment. I read and documented my self in the footnotes and citations section, but I still can't figure it out. I put a lot of work on this article and documented my self for it and I really need straight help to get it done. Appreciate, many love. Joan

Fjoan (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fjoan I'm confused. I see sources in footnotes. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Alright, thank you Timtrent, so should I resubmit it again now ? In your opinion it's ok ? Waiting for your feedback and thank you so much buddy ! Appreciate Fjoan (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fjoan: It is not OK, and after skimming the article and some of the sources I doubt if it will ever be acceptable. Showing notability for producers is difficult. The draft has footnotes, but they are for the wrong things and to the wrong sources. I've commented at greater length on your talk page and on the Draft:Osmia Music. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Worldbruce for your detailed response, really appreciate, you helped me to understand more the process. I'm not friend or have any connection with him at all, I know him only from mass media in our country and decided to write about him for my journalism license and also to create something in online about him. Anyways, I see now the wider picture after your comments and I really appreciate your patience. I will pass this article for the moment then, and keep it in Draft mood till I see more reliable articles from him , something stronger to sustain his work, cause is pretty evident that only 2 or 3 press releases are legit for wiki policies and makes sense all. Again, thank you very much and have an amazing day. Fjoan (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:02:39, 23 October 2021 review of draft by 2006nishan178713


Why isn't my article getting reviewed? I believe that it is properly referenced and neutral. My previous article got reviewed in just a day. Any updates from the Afc team would be appreciated. This is my article - Draft:Vartak (Project) Thanks

Partha Basak 13:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006nishsn178713 As noted on your draft, "This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,894 pending submissions waiting for review." You may have gotten lucky with a prior draft getting a speedy review, but that is not routine. It is not a queue; drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:19:59, 23 October 2021 review of submission by Socratesart

I would like to withdraw from this submission due to:

1. Repeated attempts at a shakedown by an agent who is a member of the wikipedia editing community claiming to be able to insure publication of this article for fees with implied threat of preventing its publication otherwise. These activities could only have been perpetuated by someone knowledgeable of the draft submission attempts and thus are inside the wikipedia editing community involved with this article. 2. Repeated false statements by some reviewers regarding status of publishers and venues cited in draft. 3. Insinuations by some commenters/reviewers that have no bearing in reality or fact.

I have no interest in participating in abusive or exploitative processes of this sort and want no further connection with this article or its processing. This is not a request for review of the submission.

Socratesart:talk 21:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Socratesart simply abandon the draft. But recognise that the attempted shakedown is a scam FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Socratesart As stated, what you describe is a scam perpetrated by third parties. Legitimate Wikipedia editors will not demand the payment of any fees for guaranteeing publication. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it was clearly a scam and I sincerely hope you are right about it not being a legitimate Wikipedia editor, but how could they even know about the draft if they were not a Wikipedia editor? I'll have to admit to being a bit disillusioned and confused. Also, how did an earlier [uncorrected] form of the draft get published on Wikitia if there wasn't someone inside Wikipedia involved? This Wikitia thing is a bit unnerving, too, as it published a form of the draft that was not yet ready or intended for publication, and now THAT version is out there in public! ugh Socratesart:talk 23:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I am abandoning the draft. Thank you all.Socratesart:talk 23:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Socratesart: What happened is that they were stalking your contributions history. All edits on Wikipedia are public knowledge, and nothing prevents someone from finding a draft and crossposting its content to Wiktia if they (1) know where to find it, such as through your contributions and (2) are in compliance with Wikipedia's licence. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated.Socratesart:talk 17:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Socratesart It is perfectly usual for sites to "scrape" content from Wikipedia. It is allowed under the licensing. The thing to do is to be completely unconcerned about it. If you look when you submit any text here you allow this. As an example I see "By clicking "Reply", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL" below the text I am entering now.
This means that we release any control of any text we place here, this message included.
If you decide to pick up the draft you are abandoning again at some future time it will be made available to you even if it is deleted.
I'd genuinely prefer you not to be disenchanted and simply to accept that you have been wise and not fallen for a scam. No-one can prevent any article from being published provided the article itself meets our rules FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your kind words and clarification. Good to know text still available. Was hoping someone would improve it!Socratesart:talk 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

01:22:42, 24 October 2021 review of draft by 2600:1702:18E0:6020:7133:23:F413:B05B


2600:1702:18E0:6020:7133:23:F413:B05B (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why my article been held on and have speedy deletion ?

No sources, no article, no debate. We also do not engage in speculation. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:44:45, 24 October 2021 review of submission by Thefarcry

Hey there, my current article was declined for creation due to apparently having copyrighted material from my listed skjolddesign.com source, and I'm a little confused as to what exactly is copyrighted, considering the following: 1) The skjolddesign.com source talks about the subject in a non neutral point of view, where as my draft has kept neutrality in speaking to his merits to musical notability. 2) Everything that's been spoken about in that source has been verified from numerous other sources that are independent of both the subject, and of the skjolddesign.com source.

Thank you for any and all assistance in the matter! Thefarcry (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation has nothing to do with the neutrality of the source, or how it contributes to notability, Thefarcry. I am supposing that you have copied and pasted information from that source, which seems to be having a copyright license incompatible with Wikipedia's license. For legal reasons, we cannot accept material of this sort. The page was deleted for this reason, at least in part. JavaHurricane 05:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I triple checked the information I used from the provided source, and I made sure to state what I used from that source in the most simplistic manner possible to avoid issues of using an inappropriate tone, with of course the citation to go along with it. The editor who declined my submission already suggested for me to reach out to the administrator who deleted the article to get it reinstated for resubmission, which I'm currently in the process of doing now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefarcry (talk • contribs) 05:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thefarcry Be aware that copyrights are very important. Wikipedia has no idea who you are and will protect copyrights fiercely. You may find Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials helpful. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there @Timtrent:! Absolutely, fortunately my draft was restored after the original editor who viewed my first submission of the AoC draft submission + administrator who initiated the deletion both came to the conclusion that my article did in fact not have any violations of copyright infringement. Moving forward with further edits on the draft, I'll be making sure that every precaution is taken to continue to avoid potential copyright infringement. Thefarcry (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:46:40, 24 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by MJSandow


You declined my submission on Rules Based Motion, and your comments are both correct, pertinent, but unfortunately unresolvable. If a concept is regards as new by the US patent office, can that be regarded as more than a simple neologism.

This is a new concept to reconcile the impossibility to explain how the wrist works when all the parts vary but the net output is consistent. The concept under pinned patents filed in 2000, as well as my PhD. It is clearly described as a neologism, and more /all of the background work is from our group. The wrist has been an impossible structure to resolve (and fix until now) due to is wide variation within the linkages and scatter-gram findings of empirical observations. This new concept has led to a surgical approach that is becoming a standard repair, but the Rule Based Motion notion is beyond most colleagues comprehension. Given your comment, I do not think this is resolvable and one of the challenges I have accepted of pushing out new concepts to question old incumbent and unworkable ideas. My thought was that Wikipedia could provide some notion that it was worth considering as way to reconcile the empirical vs conceptual explanations for such systems - and thus allow input form others in other fields. Maybe it could be aired, but with lots of disclaimers. You are right it is pulled off my thesis and other articles, but they contained the considered and required text, with some additional material. Thanks for the quick response, but unless it can be considered largely as it is, not worth resubmitting. Worth a try for me, but will not be able to address your concerns - as they were quite correct. MJSMJSandow (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

MJSandow (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MJSandow Yes, Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about something that you created. Perhaps in time, independent editors will take note of your discoveries in independent reliable sources and write about them- which is the typical way an article is created. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJSandow (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:21:40, 24 October 2021 review of draft by Anvar Mirhodiyev


Anvar Mirhodiyev (talk) 12:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:52:21, 24 October 2021 review of draft by Lake Van monster


Hello, can you help me with the sources of the series articles that I create regularly?

Lake Van monster (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:09:23, 24 October 2021 review of draft by Anhoiemnemoinguoi


Anhoiemnemoinguoi (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC) }} Please help me edit the source and help me make my first article a success by sharing some experiences on wikipedia so that I can improve in future articles.[reply]

19:35:25, 24 October 2021 review of draft by Motaz.alsakran


Motaz.alsakran (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Motaz.alsakran Please do not submit items in Arabic to the English Language Wikipedia.
من فضلك لا ترسل المواد باللغة العربية إلى ويكيبيديا اللغة الإنجليزية. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok im sorry Motaz.alsakran (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

02:04:29, 25 October 2021 review of submission by Chaseniks


Chaseniks (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently created this wiki page for [Insider] using a template from an [(website)|already published wiki page] and the draft was rejected. Was wondering why the draft was rejected consider it had more references from reputed websites and more information than the published wiki page.

Request on 02:14:52, 25 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by CardistryExpert


Brian Tudor Speedy Deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Brian_Tudor

I am an avid fan of specialty card tricks and when I found that wikipedia had articles about it I was surprised to find that they didn't have a profile for one of my very favorite magicians. How does Lee Asher,, Chris Kenner, Daniel and David Buck - Dan and Dave who all worked with him have pages, yet he does not?

He is mentioned in several articles as the creator of the genre:

[[1]] (Multiple mentions) [[2]] [[3]]

The authority on card flourishes, Jerry Cestkowski said in his book, Tudor had "very, very good flourish cuts and some unbelievable false flourish cuts." (http://docshare.tips/the-encyclopedia-of-playing-card-flourishes_587545e9b6d87f86848b49f5.html )

You asked for more independent sources to confirm his notability, the article lists that he is cited as notable by:

1. Vanity Fair 2. Encyclopedia of Playing Card Flourishes 3. Urban Dictionary 4. Genii Magazine 5. Magic Magazine 6. DecemberBoys.com.ua 7. Bicycle Playing Card website 8. "Flash Cards with Jerry Cestkowski" podcast

Under "Requirements for Notability of Entertainers", he qualifies under: 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CardistryExpert (talk • contribs) 02:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am in contact with the cited noble contributors such as David Copperfield, Chris Kenner, and Dave and Dan, but they all don't understand why the draft would be rejected.

Do you have any tips to help me accomplish this?

CardistryExpert (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CardistryExpert. I've left a detailed comment on the draft. It isn't productive to compare the draft with existing articles. Wikipedia is user-generated, so it isn't a reliable source. It's possible that he shouldn't be mentioned in those articles, and the existence of an article doesn't mean it should exist. It could be that some of those biographies should be deleted, but no one has gotten around to it yet. It's also very common for some members of a set of people, who are similarly talented and have worked together, to have been written about more in reliable, independent sources, and some written about less. That, not ability or accomplishment, is what defines notability in Wikipedia, so some will be notable and some won't be. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:16:05, 25 October 2021 review of submission by Parantak.yadav


Parantak.yadav (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:56, 25 October 2021 review of submission by Midoisangry

I believe it meets the requirements for an article.

Midoisangry (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Midoisangry It does not.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:09:53, 25 October 2021 review of submission by Meimaar.93

Hello dear Graeme Bartlett, as you mentioned already about the concerns raised up about my recent activity on the UArchitects page, I declared in my talk page that I work independently from any organization and I would like to inform Dutch architecture studios. so is it possible now that I start and modify the page? thank you in advance. Meimaar.93 (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:20:29, 25 October 2021 review of submission by Naser Almeer


I have edited my references and i want to post my own biogrophy about myself and i need to know what exactly to change to get the post at live section

@Naser Almeer: For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Please consider that you are not the best perosn to write about yourself. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Naser Almeer Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:24:33, 25 October 2021 review of draft by Navnine9


Navnine9 (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navine9 You don't ask a question, but does it have to do with adding project tags? 331dot (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:02:30, 25 October 2021 review of draft by Naser Almeer


I had problems publishing my biography and it tells me that i need to add refrences and change some of the article template so i want to know if those references gonna solve the problem and the article goes live here is the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Naser_Almeer and these are the references https://alarabi.qa/طائرة-العربي-تتاهل-لربع-نهائي-البطولة/ https://al-sharq.com/article/29/03/2019/عودة-ناصر-المير-لطائرة-الوكرة https://www.olympic.qa/ar/we-are-team-qatar/meet-naser-al-meer-team-qatars-beach-volleyball-player-0 https://volleyball.qa/ar/غداً-تنطلق-بطولة-كأس-أسبايرللكرة-الطا/ https://twitter.com/alkasschannel/status/995008800422744064?lang=ar and if it is possible in which exact paragraphe i have to make the changes and thanks . Naser Almeer (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Naser Almeer I have told you this before.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Please read Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Citing sources FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:14:38, 25 October 2021 review of submission by Airanc


Airanc (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC) We have made some changes to the draft page "Stefano Eugenio Marsaglia" on 2021/10/25. We are awaiting approval of the draft[reply]

Airanc Who is "we"? Accounts should only be operated by a single person. Regardless, the draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Airanc: in addition to what 331dot has written above, please see WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia (including other language editions) and its mirrors are never a reliable source. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Airanc It was inappropriate to copy Draft:Stefano Eugenio Marsaglia and paste it to create Stefano Eugenio Marsaglia today. I have left two warnings on your talk page. One is because of the copy and paste, and the other because your edits and the use of the first person plural suggest to me WP:UPE, something I hope is not the case, but I suspect is.
@Hatchens rejected the draft, so I am pinging them in order that they are aware FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should offer policy based opnions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefano Eugenio Marsaglia FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Timtrent; thank you for the ping. Now, I'm aware. -Hatchens (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:03:23, 25 October 2021 review of draft by Kittyo


Kittyo (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi I had an article declined and have made the edits that where suggested. I think I accidentally went to 'resubmit' without using 'publish' first as the text returned looked like the original article. I have just re-edited and pressed 'publish'. Do I need to do anything further to resubmit?

Thank you! Kittyo (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kittyo You have successfully submitted it for review. Note that "publish changes" should be interpreted to simply mean "save changes". It used to say "save changes" but was changed for legal reasons, to emphasize that all edits are visible to the public(even those in drafts). 331dot (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply, that's great.

Kittyo (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:11:12, 25 October 2021 review of submission by AnnieTruth


AnnieTruth (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC) I need assistance to change the title of the article to Adrian Daniel to reflect the music artist stage name for easy reference. Everything else will remain the same. He is under consideration for a GRAMMY and a Nasdaq billboard will be posted on 10/29/21.[reply]

@AnnieTruth it seems you needed no help here. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:01:46, 25 October 2021 review of draft by DrJay31


I have tried multiple time to publish changes and it will not let me submit it. It is currently in draft mode.

DrJay31 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DrJay31 Your draft was deleted as a blatant advertisement, and you are now blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

High School in Samthong, Xieng Khouang Province, Laos

03:17:55, 26 October 2021 review of submission by NruasPaoYPP


NruasPaoYPP (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NruasPaoYPP This is a full article, and is outside the scope of this help desk FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:18:07, 26 October 2021 review of draft by Priyadarshithakur


Priyadarshithakur (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyadarshithakur You don't ask a question, but please be familiar with the autobiography policy. It's not forbidden to write about yourself, but it is highly discouraged, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. Also be aware that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. Any article about you should not say what you want to say about yourself; it should summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. This is usually very hard for people to do about themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:24:34, 26 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Ramizkthalhath



Ramizkthalhath (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramizkthalhath You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Question

Draft:James F. Murray, Sr.

Kindly explain why this proposed article has been rejected. Happy to make whatever additions/modifications are required. Ample source material and reference are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orpheus-555 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JAMES F. MURRAY, SR

What prompted creation of a page for James F. Murray, Sr. is him being referenced in this Wiki page on the subject of New Jersey's 1937 gubernatorial election. He was originally wrongly identified as James E. Murray.

1937 New Jersey gubernatorial election— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orpheus-555 (talk • contribs)

Orpheus-555 It was not "rejected", only "declined"- which means it's possible to resubmit it. An article about a politician must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable politician, or at least the more general notable person definition. Merely seeking public office does not merit someone an article. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:19:19, 26 October 2021 review of submission by 59.152.41.34


59.152.41.34 (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It cannot be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:59:42, 26 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by RicardoRon21



RicardoRon21 (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RicardoRon21 You don't ask a question, but your article has no independent reliable sources to support its content and tell us why this event meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:08:31, 26 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by RicardoRon21



RicardoRon21 (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1052001734"